FDA TVECA post table of contents for Deeming Final Rule

[skoony]

IF HUD is open minded....

Public Housing Ban on Smoking May Include E-Cigarettes

See Just Julie's comments.

Of course they are being open minded.
“E-cigarettes are a tobacco product and because they are unregulated and many of the chemicals and exposures are unknown we must err on the side of protecting public health,” Sward says. “We know smoking and exposing people to secondhand smoke is like jumping off a 15-story building. We don’t know yet if using e-cigarettes and exposing people to e-cigarettes is jumping off an eight-story building or a five-story building.”
Public Housing Ban on Smoking May Include E-Cigarettes

You see we are tobacco users are we not? Why should we expect special treatment?
Some one mentioned somewhere in a post the transition from vaper to tobacco user
was in the works. I forgot who that fellow was. It'll come back to me. He must have
been a smart fellow. Any way I have to stuff my Iclear16 with tobacco. Toodles.

Mike

 

[tiburonfirst]

You see we are tobacco users are we not? Why should we expect special treatment?

because there's still some common sense left?

''Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has ruled that e-cigarettes do not violate the state's smoking ban''

and the only law enacted so far is to prohibit sales to anyone under 18. naturally, if this continues to stand i have no idea.

 

[englishmick]

It's easy to ignore when you don't care. However, they are not ignoring it. It's part of the reason they want to deem it tobacco. They see a new tax opportunity for a profit windfall in the light of the MSA payment downfall.

There appears to be a split personality running the show sometimes. Do we ban ecigs completely so we can go on collecting our cigarette taxes. Or do we regulate the ecig market in such a way as to maximize our ability to tax it as a replacement for cigarette taxes.

The actions the various authorities take make it seem like they can't decide which way to go. I guess the truth is that there is no secret committee somewhere pulling the strings. Just a bunch of panicky pols who know they have to do something to save their revenue stream.

 

[haleysdadda]

because there's still some common sense left?

IDK about that! Just like paying attention doesn't seem to be in anyone's budget these days!

 

[choochoogranny]

Not sure if this has already been posted in this thread but, I find it very interesting. How could the FDA or any of the other anti vaping groups possibly ignore these results published by the CDC?

Products - Data Briefs - Number 216 - September 2015

In definition of E-cigarettes they describe the e-cigarettes that look like regular tobacco cigs. No mods mentioned here. This survey appears to be for cig-a-likes only.

 

[sofarsogood]

There appears to be a split personality running the show sometimes. Do we ban ecigs completely so we can go on collecting our cigarette taxes. Or do we regulate the ecig market in such a way as to maximize our ability to tax it as a replacement for cigarette taxes.

The actions the various authorities take make it seem like they can't decide which way to go. I guess the truth is that there is no secret committee somewhere pulling the strings. Just a bunch of panicky pols who know they have to do something to save their revenue stream.

Vaping is improving the health and finances of millions of people, especially lower income people who need all the help they can get. Enforcement of controls on hardware and nic concentrate, short of outlawing vaping, seems nightmarish to me. So go ahead, ban, everything, put the vape shops our of business, blah blah blah. If I was the OMB I'd tell the FDA to start over and hope that the problem will belong to the next administration or Congress will act to gut the authority before there is another round. The reason for the long drawn out process and endless lead times is to terrorize us into agreeing to their controls and their taxes. They believe it will work because we are helpless addicts who will do anything for a fix. I'm going to tell them to go to hell.

 

[Kent C]

“We know smoking and exposing people to secondhand smoke is like jumping off a 15-story building. We don’t know yet if using e-cigarettes and exposing people to e-cigarettes is jumping off an eight-story building or a five-story building.”

They need to learn more about how vaping is so much safer....

 

[zoiDman]

Been sending this out a lot lately...

E-cigarettes around 95% less harmful than tobacco estimates landmark review - Press releases - GOV.UK

This was the 2nd Latest recipient.

Secretary.Castro@hud.gov

 

[Endor]

Of course they are being open minded.
“E-cigarettes are a tobacco product and because they are unregulated and many of the chemicals and exposures are unknown we must err on the side of protecting public health,” Sward says. “We know smoking and exposing people to secondhand smoke is like jumping off a 15-story building. We don’t know yet if using e-cigarettes and exposing people to e-cigarettes is jumping off an eight-story building or a five-story building.”

Oh my... the rhetoric is becoming unreal. Can it be that the mass public actually believes this drivel?

We have all been exposed to second-hand smoke in our lifetimes. Every single one of us. I'm exposed daily walking down the street, and was constantly exposed while growing up in the 1970's (when everybody, including my parents, smoked wherever they wanted to).

Yet, not every single one of us is going to die from it. In fact, I'd propose that very FEW of us will die from it (and if you read Siegel's blog comments, nobody actually will, but I digress).

However, if every single one of us jumped off a 15-story building, we'd likely ALL die from that. Perhaps one or two of us would "get lucky", but by and large, it would result in mass casualties.

How can these two situations be equated, and with a straight face?

 

[navigator2011]

How can these two situations be equated, and with a straight face?

You know, the longer I live, the more I am confronted with the notion that what is "reality" doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is what people "think" is reality. I see this all the time--people think that what they believe is actually reality, as though somehow their belief cannot be wrong, and they shut out any evidence to the contrary. I cannot remember when was the last time I heard someone say, "Wow, I guess I was wrong--thanks for setting me straight." And on the Internet, people are even more hardheaded. People have been brainwashed into thinking that any exposure to second-hand smoke is permanently damaging, sort of like getting too many X-rays done, the cancer will eventually present itself as a result. This thinking is endemic now days--I have friends and family that seem like perfectly rational people that have been convinced their exposure to cigarette smoke during the 1970 permanently damaged their cardiovascular system. They never seem to question BBQs, camp fires, the fireplace, birthday candles, or the toxic fumes we all breath on the freeway. In any case, I always like to point out that, you know, our bodies are designed to heal themselves.

My point is, then, if you consider the audience the author of that story was aiming for, it all starts to make sense.

 

[Endor]

My point is, then, if you consider the audience the author of that story was aiming for, it all starts to make sense.

That makes sense, combined with some old wisdom from Hitler himself: "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."

Certainly the lies are getting quite big, aren't they?

 

[haleysdadda]

You know, the longer I live, the more I am confronted with the notion that what is "reality" doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is what people "think" is reality. I see this all the time--people think that what they believe is actually reality, as though somehow their belief cannot be wrong, and they shut out any evidence to the contrary. I cannot remember when was the last time I heard someone say, "Wow, I guess I was wrong--thanks for setting me straight." And on the Internet, people are even more hardheaded. People have been brainwashed into thinking that any exposure to second-hand smoke is permanently damaging, sort of like getting too many X-rays done, the cancer will eventually present itself as a result. This thinking is endemic now days--I have friends and family that seem like perfectly rational people that have been convinced their exposure to cigarette smoke during the 1970 permanently damaged their cardiovascular system. They never seem to question BBQs, camp fires, the fireplace, birthday candles, or the toxic fumes we all breath on the freeway. In any case, I always like to point out that, you know, our bodies are designed to heal themselves.

My point is, then, if you consider the audience the author of that story was aiming for, it all starts to make sense.

It's the difference between perceived reality and actual reality. Been happening since Columbus didn't fall of the edge of the world! And people still didn't believe! Our reality these days is you can't believe the scientists these days because they're biased in favor of who's paying them. How else could studies be so diametrically opposed on the same subject? The laws of actual science say they can't be. It's when the human being unknowingly (or knowingly) interjects their own belief on how something should come out. And before anyone thinks I'm bashing all scientific studies I'm NOT! Just the ones that have Big ( insert industry of choice) involved!

 

[navigator2011]

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."

I hate to admit it, but it does hold true.

 

[oldbikeguy]

Been happening since Columbus didn't fall of the edge of the world! And people still didn't believe!

It's just cause he didn't go far enough

 

[DC2]

There appears to be a split personality running the show sometimes. Do we ban ecigs completely so we can go on collecting our cigarette taxes. Or do we regulate the ecig market in such a way as to maximize our ability to tax it as a replacement for cigarette taxes.

The actions the various authorities take make it seem like they can't decide which way to go. I guess the truth is that there is no secret committee somewhere pulling the strings. Just a bunch of panicky pols who know they have to do something to save their revenue stream.

My opinion only...

States: Most for taxing, a few for banning
Federal: Bring down the Ban Hammer

 

[zoiDman]

My opinion only...

States: Most for taxing, a few for banning
Federal: Bring down the Ban Hammer

What Particular Items/Products do you think will be Banned at the Federal Level?

 

[DC2]

What Particular Items/Products do you think will be Banned at the Federal Level?

Everything but tamper-proof, non-refillable, closed-system cigalikes in menthol and tobacco flavors.

 

[Lessifer]

What Particular Items/Products do you think will be Banned at the Federal Level?

the current thought spreading around the CASAA FB page is flavors other than tobacco/menthol will be gone in short order.

 

[Katya]

My opinion only...

States: Most for taxing, a few for banning
Federal: Bring down the Ban Hammer

I agree. The states are mostly interested in collecting more revenue--any way they can. Think CA...

For the feds it's mostly a power trip. They have to control everything or they can't sleep at night. Freaks.

 

[Katya]

Everything but tamper-proof, non-refillable, closed-system cigalikes in menthol and tobacco flavors.

the current thought spreading around the CASAA FB page is flavors other than tobacco/menthol will be gone in short order.